At least, President Goodluck Jonathan is unmistakably psychologically troubled, even if his physical state may not be publicly discernible. Evidence of his inner turmoil is the fact that his talk nowadays is loaded with defensive innuendos and snide remarks, which betray a tortured soul. From the look of things, Nigerians may be in for a long-term presidential combativeness, worsened by a constant search for a chance to get back at the source of discomfort, a euphemism for “the enemy”.
Consider Jonathan’s latest not-so-veiled return punches, right inside The Cathedral Church of the Advent at the Anglican Diocese of Abuja, and during the Christmas Day service too. It was disturbing enough that he chose the venue to continue a fight; but even more unsettling was his choice of a day traditionally regarded as a time for expressing goodwill to all men. What could be more demonstrative of his hurting psyche and implacable vengefulness? God have mercy!
Listen to Jonathan: “For us at this time, especially we the politicians that we think we own the country, begin to think about the next election and doing what we ought not to do, making statements we ought not to make, writing letters we ought not to write.” You may excuse the assault on grammar, but without mentioning names, he nevertheless succeeded in clarifying his major target, namely, former president Olusegun Obasanjo, who spoilt his December with a devastating 18-page open letter that is still the talk of the town.
After implying that politicians do not own the country, he interestingly went on to identify those he considered as being in charge. His words: “I call on clergymen and statesmen who really own this country because this country belongs to our statesmen, traditional rulers, religious leaders, our men, our women and our youth. Nigeria does not belong to any politician or group of politicians. So we continue to urge you to pray for this country.” However, apart from being nauseatingly hypocritical, it all seemed like a cunningly political statement intended to sell his brand, if anything. Lest we forget, he has been perceptibly central, even if subtly so, to abuse of power by the federal government, more recently in Rivers State where official impunity continues apparently with his nod.
Although he found the platform irresistible for his purpose, he strangely failed to exploit it to the fullest; for the church environment, with the implication of spiritual presence, would perhaps have helped his case in rebutting Obasanjo’s damaging allegations against him. Imagine if he had sworn in that sacred space that he really knew nothing about Obasanjo’s incredible claim, among others, that the presidency was harbouring trained killers ready to be unleashed on presumed foes of the administration. Perhaps he would have been believable, given the tendency of the religious public to accept, often uncritically, declarations of innocence delivered on the altar of faith. It is possible, then, to interpret the loss of opportunity as an indication that Jonathan may indeed have something to hide.
However, though it will not be surprising if Jonathan treats future formal presidential appearances as extensions of his battle, it will surely reinforce the downward trend in governance, not to talk of good governance. This is because using every public forum to attack “others” would not only be obsessive; it would also regrettably point to a dangerous distraction from the essential function of government.
Despite the fact that Jonathan has written his own open reply to Obasanjo, and requested the National Human Rights Commission (NHCR) to investigate the allegations of the existence of a political watch list including over 1, 000 people as well as the training of snipers, which the presidency links with “human rights violations”, it is intriguing that he won’t let any opportunity pass without talking back.
